Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

SO....

Quoting:That said, IBM has also always guarded their mainframe technologies against all comers. A company can be both pro-open source and try to defend one of its core businesses. Indeed, IBM is doing just a company should do: Trying to make money as efficiently as it can.[

Next time Microsoft threatens Linux with Patents, or Signs an agreement with another company and claims the other company licensed said patents for use with Linux, we should all shut the *Expletive deleted* up, that includes you Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. Because Microsoft is trying to defend it's core business and make money as efficiently as it can.

It's black and white. Either IBM broke their promise or they didn't. This is yet another piece of IBM fanboism that doesn't explain why IBM has stuck to their promise. It does have that glorious IBM quote claiming that they haven't broken their promise.

Black and white often depends on gray.
The pledge specifically gives IBM the right to use the patents in defense of lawsuits asserting patent or intellectual property rights against them. I'm not familiar with procedures in the EU, so the question of whether or not IBM has broken their promise actually lies in whether or not that action meets the exception.

This is very interesting on several levels, and an issue that I think has been blown way out of proportion on both "sides" of the argument. At the core of this whole thing is that both sides arguably have jumped the gun before all the facts are in.

First, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols doesn't need me to defend him, but to say he's a "fanboi" of anything is fairly laughable. If there's any failing in his article, it's that he only mentions in one line what should be expanded on further (in my opinion): IBM could have avoided this situation getting this far by lightening up a little and dealing better with TurboHercules.

Second, I'm with dinotrac here -- it's unclear whether an action by TurboHercules to bring antitrust action in the EU constitutes a suit against IBM. It might and it might not. Either way, it doesn't violate the pledge to be legally prepared for whatever they have to do to defend legal action against them, whether it's answering to an antitrust action by the EU or by a company which, to listen to some of the whispers, has either covertly or overtly accepted the rhetorical 30 pieces of silver from a large Western Washington multinational.

Third, I'm having a hard time understanding tracyanne's comparison: SJVN writes "A company can be both pro-open source and try to defend one of its core businesses. Indeed, IBM is doing just a company should do: Trying to make money as efficiently as it can." Quick reminder here: Both IBM and Microsoft are companies; big ones at that, with all the trappings of big business that, for better or worse (mostly worse), come with it. To say neither are angels would be an understatement. But IBM has been a huge contributor to Linux and FOSS -- OpenOffice.org is my personal favorite, though the billions in research and assistance over the years probably would be more worthy of appreciation -- and to equate them to Microsoft (not exactly pro-open source, last time I checked) is a cheap shot. There is no instance where we should "all shut the 'Expletive deleted' up," but I think in this case, the "outcry" is not warranted.

Should IBM get a free pass because of their contributions to Linux/FOSS? Absolutely not. But until more is discovered to the contrary, in my opinion IBM didn't break its promise.

Specifically, the free pass he gives to IBM on the grounds that they are trying "..." to defend one of its core businesses. Indeed, IBM is doing just a company should do: Trying to make money as efficiently as it can.

That equally applies to Microsoft, or any other corporation.

It is not an argument for why IBM should get a free pass, and nor is the fact that they have been a huge contributor to FOSS.

I don't have an opinion on who is right or who is wrong here, with regards to The commercialisation of the Mainframe emulator by TurboHerucules, which is why I've stayed out of the conversation.

As I understand things, IBM are as entitled to Bundle their software with their hardware, in exactly the same way Apple are. So for me it's pretty clear cut, unless IBM give TurboHercules permission, TurboHercules cannot legally unbundle the software from IBM's hardware.

I agree that the overall rush to cheerlead IBM is fanboyish, and I think even PJ is off-base on this. Who is presenting TH's side of the story? Only Simon Phipps, and the TH execs. The reporting overall is very one-sided. Only here on LXer have I seen any kind of intelligent discussion and searching for facts.

I'm not on either parties side, since I don't have anything to do with mainframes... but let me see if I have this straight:

From what I understand, after some other things that went on, this Turbo Hercules company asked IBM what IP rights they thought they had regarding something or other, IBM replied by saying "This list right here..." and provided said list.

Suddenly IBM is being accused of bringing a lawsuit against the TH people, and everybody and their brother has their panties in a wad because two of the things in that list were things IBM said they wouldn't sue about, even though IBM hasn't brought any such lawsuit.